Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderator: In-Game Head Admins

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:18 pm #414897

So the rule itself is "Don't be a dick."

And the description is "We're all here to have a good time, supposedly. Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact or end the round for someone with little IC justification is against the rules. Legitimate conflicts where people get upset do happen however, as detailed in the escalation section of the rules."

From my experience, admins consider "Going out of your way to seriously negatively impact..." situations IC issues in practice. And more often than not, apply Rule 1 when "...end the round for someone..." situations happen.

Rule 1 precedents cover random murders and grief, but only targeted grief aka metagrudging.

I'll mention a situation I've experienced, so it can be discussed.

You're a Free Golem and you've gone mining for roughly an hour. You set up your R&D lab and fill the protolathe with your materials. You make an AI and give them a "Yeah, go do whatever," lawset. The AI then proceeds to print random items from plasmamen internals tanks to laptop/computer parts. 10-20 copies of the same item, until all your materials are depleted. An admin considered this an IC issue.



User avatar
PKPenguin321
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Byond Username: PKPenguin321

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby PKPenguin321 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:21 pm #414898

rule 1 is vaguely written because it's supposed to be enforced case by case. it's a common sense rule. laying down a specific example and labeling it as a catch all for an example of "grief" completely goes against the nature of the rule itself.
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
Image

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:59 pm #414905

I'm not saying it shouldn't be vague. We all know what grief is. I'm wondering if grief is actually against the rules when it's not metagrudging. Taking my example into consideration, common sense would dictate that the individual was being a dick, but the admin didn't enforce it this way.

User avatar
TribeOfBeavers
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:54 pm
Location: Canada
Byond Username: TribeOfBeavers

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby TribeOfBeavers » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:49 pm #414913

Minor conflicts are important to the functioning of the game, even though they could almost always be considered "being a dick" on someone's part. Admins can't (and shouldn't) intervene every time someone starts a minor IC conflict, as otherwise rounds can get very stale and it becomes very obvious who is or is not an antagonist.

In general, "griefing" is covered under rule 1 but admins can choose wether or not to enforce it (under rule 0) based on the severity, wether it creates an interesting situation, how often the person does it etc.

Players are usually encouraged to solve these sorts of minor situations IC as it usually creates more memorable experiences for everyone than "I did my job until the shuttle was called".

The "negatively impact..." part is often enforced, just across multiple rounds so the effects often aren't apparant immedietly. We don't ban someone for wasting all the minerals once, but if they are constantly going out of their way to do that sort of thing we'd talk to/ban them depending on the situation.

We can't really discuss your example, as we don't have all the information about it. Both sides of the story are taken into account, and we can't really ask the AI anything here.

User avatar
Bluespace
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:04 pm
Location: UK
Byond Username: Bluespace

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Bluespace » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:59 pm #414915

The AI DID grief you, it was being a cunt for no reason. I hope you killed it.
But what can an admin do? A day ban? An hour ban? It didn't break it's laws, so ultimately, it's just being a dick, which gets it lynched.
I play Boris Pepper.
Image

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:26 pm #414923

I'm not trying to get people banned, I just don't want to be griefed by people who do it for schadenfreude. I didn't kill the AI because that's not why I play SS13. Although, I'd like to point out, there have been times when I've killed or disabled a griefer and either got punished or had to spend the rest of my round defending myself in ahelps.

It's often a good faith vs bad faith thing. If someone does something griefy and it's funny and they understand that everyone's here to have fun, there's never a problem. But sometimes there's people who justify the grief with "but it's not against the rules," and that's kind of ridiculous.

User avatar
Saegrimr
 
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:39 pm
Byond Username: Saegrimr

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Saegrimr » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:41 am #414962

You told an AI to "do whatever", i'm not sure what you were expecting. AI players are dicks with poorly worded laws and instructions, that's part of the fun of the role is being extremely technical with wording.
It's a situation you brought on yourself and something you could fix yourself immediately.
tedward1337 wrote:Sae is like the racist grandad who everyone laughs at for being racist, but deep down we all know he's right.

Dr_bee
 
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:31 pm
Byond Username: DrBee

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Dr_bee » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:12 am #414986

Saegrimr wrote:You told an AI to "do whatever", i'm not sure what you were expecting. AI players are dicks with poorly worded laws and instructions, that's part of the fun of the role is being extremely technical with wording.
It's a situation you brought on yourself and something you could fix yourself immediately.


and yet purged AIs are expected to act like normal humans with normal escalation, and the golem law was basically codified purging, that is what is the problem I think.

User avatar
PKPenguin321
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Byond Username: PKPenguin321

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby PKPenguin321 » Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:16 am #414988

Dr_bee wrote:
Saegrimr wrote:You told an AI to "do whatever", i'm not sure what you were expecting. AI players are dicks with poorly worded laws and instructions, that's part of the fun of the role is being extremely technical with wording.
It's a situation you brought on yourself and something you could fix yourself immediately.


and yet purged AIs are expected to act like normal humans

no laws != a law that literally demands the AI to do whatever it feels like
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
Image

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:04 am #414994

I mean, if you're going to law lawyer, I could try to pull up the actual law. I didn't make the AI, another golem did. But to paraphrase, it was basically a freedom/purge law. In the ahelp, the admin didn't say the law was badly written, they said someone could print whatever they want. They assumed there was no malice, even though there obviously was.

However, conversely, a player could accidentally kill another one for whatever reason and it's more binary here. Admins will take on a guilty before proven innocent approach even if the kill was valid. The rules list a lot of reasons why a non-antag might kill another non-antag, but admins will take this approach I've noticed.

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Cobby » Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:41 am #415001

Purged ais can still lmao you, they just can’t slaughter the station because haha no laws XD
Image

User avatar
Screemonster
 
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:23 pm
Byond Username: Scree

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Screemonster » Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:48 am #415032

Just because anyone can print whatever they want and not fall foul of the OOC rules doesn't mean they can print whatever they want and not fall foul of an IC assbeating

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby feem » Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:35 pm #415068

Rule 1 covers grief. Rule 0 lets you get away with it to a point.

Admins understand that the /tg/ game operates on a certain layer of what would be considered, in other games, or even other servers, 'grief.'

This has become one of the major reasons that rule 0 exists. It's not just a 'catch all' to get rid of players that 'the admins don't like,' it's a rule that says 'we might not strictly enforce the rules if it's fun, funny, or original.' Rules are enforced at admin discretion, so err on the side of that discretion.

The question you have to ask yourself is: if not absolutely warranted in the situation, in doing what i'm doing, am i actively attempting to deprive another player of their round/experience/gameplay in a way that i know or could conceivably believe will be detrimental to them? Would I want this done to me?

And if after that consideration you're being a dick, then you need to stop.

Admins will basically use that as a litmus. Did you start the altercation, in someone else's department, in which you ended up dunking them? Then you _might_ be a dick. Did someone else come into your department, refuse to leave, fuck with you, and you dunked them? You're probably not.

It gets more complex from there, but the general message I'm trying to get across is: read rule 1 as being absolute, and then have _reasons_ for your behavior beyond that that will allow an admin not to give a fuck under rule 0. Don't engage in dickish behavior unless 1) you're willing to completely accept the ic consequences of it and aren't shopping for someone to murder outright (e.g. have an escalation path), 2) it's warranted.

If you have any questions ahelp. And try to be creative. 'Creative' doesn't mean 'kidnap and strip them instead of killing them,' it means 'hack their power and sabotage the doors leading to their APC,' or 'hide all their fire extinguishers and release slimes after they've tried to kill you three times in your own department, then wait for them to come again.' The majority of our ahelps involving rule 1 come down to someone doing the same old shit that's meant to deprive a player of their game rather than anything that's actually vaguely interesting.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Dax Dupont » Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:30 pm #415116

This law precedent is poorly worded but
Unprovoked grief (occasionally known as greytiding), repeated cases of minor unprovoked grief, and unprovoked grief targeted towards specific players or groups (i.e. metagrudging) fall under rule 1. Admins may follow up on grief with allowing the affected parties to ignore normal escalation policy or measures such as warnings or bans.

You need to read this as:
Unprovoked grief (occasionally known as greytiding) OR repeated cases of minor unprovoked grief OR unprovoked grief targeted towards specific players or groups (i.e. metagrudging) fall under rule 1.

It needs rewording so it doesn't seem it just refers to metagrudging.

User avatar
Grazyn
 
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:01 am
Byond Username: Grazyn

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Grazyn » Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:37 am #415258

AIs have always monkey-pawed their laws, it's really a stretch to call it grief if you told it to "do whatever". Maybe if it bolted/shocked the doors, but wasting mats is nothing. Next time tell it to "help research" or something useful

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:06 pm #415678

thanks for the clarification, Dax. that's kind of what I was looking for. so TIL greytiding is actually against the rules, wow... huh, seems like the opposite if you play on the servers.

also, explain this then: "Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick out of character" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted."

User avatar
Grazyn
 
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:01 am
Byond Username: Grazyn

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Grazyn » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:16 pm #415681

If you go out of your way to stretch the interpretation of a law to be a dick to someone, it falls under law 1. But "Do whatever" literally means do whatever, so it's not a stretch.

Also you really have to stretch it to be punished for monkey-pawing a law, I recall a precedent where an antag uploaded a law that said "kill yourself", but the AI didn't do it because "it doesn't say to kill myself immediately" and admins let it go

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:29 pm #415685

If I recall correctly, silicon policy in general is an "act in good faith" thing and not a "do it literally" thing. See: Silicon Policy. The clause appears three times and is the reason you can't put everyone in solitary confinement to prevent human harm. Again, if it's creative, funny, and creates an interesting situation, go for it. But "lol I ruined your round and it's not against the rules," is pretty lame.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Dax Dupont » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:53 pm #415751

zaracka wrote:thanks for the clarification, Dax. that's kind of what I was looking for. so TIL greytiding is actually against the rules, wow... huh, seems like the opposite if you play on the servers.

also, explain this then: "Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick out of character" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted."


While greytiding is /sorta/ against the rules, it's not necessarily acted on unless it becomes a problem. If we'd bwoink everyone who tides once in a while I wouldn't be an admin.

Rule 1 is a pretty flexible one and is applied case by case since it's a catch all for things that can't always be properly quantified in rules that are a readable length.

As the AI was more or less purged, the AI can start doing what a normal crewmember can, with the exception that it can always kill people who enter their upload to protect their freedom.

Can a crew member print whatever for whatever reason? Sure.
Can they do this every round for 5 rounds straight? No, then it crosses into actionable territory.

We don't generally bwoink people for uploading a single non-harmful meme law but we sure as hell bwoink people who do it constantly. Same goes for ordering shuttles and everything really.

A lot of situations the question becomes "has it become a problem/is it excessive/is this player doing nothing but being miserable to everyone round after round".

tl;dr de facto it's up to admins to make the call, the rules are always flexible.

CPTANT
 
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby CPTANT » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:40 pm #415762

Grazyn wrote:(...)

Also you really have to stretch it to be punished for monkey-pawing a law, I recall a precedent where an antag uploaded a law that said "kill yourself", but the AI didn't do it because "it doesn't say to kill myself immediately" and admins let it go


That's just lame and such a thing is never enforced with other laws.

Imagine AI's not acting on law 2 orders because "hur dur, it doesn't say I have to obey immediately"

User avatar
Kaies
 
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:31 pm
Byond Username: Kaies

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Kaies » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:48 pm #415780

Grazyn wrote:Imagine AI's not acting on law 2 orders because "hur dur, it doesn't say I have to obey immediately"


I think it's perfectly fine to do it now and again, if the time frame for an order has not been stated. An AI is allowed to do the same with commands like "open the door". They didn't specify which door.

feem
 
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
Byond Username: Feemjmeem
Github Username: feemjmeem

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby feem » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:08 pm #415785

There are two pieces from silicon policy that specifically cover this:

You are not obligated to follow commands in a particular order (FIFO, FILO, etc.), only to complete all of them in a manner that indicates intent to actually obey the law.

When given an order likely to cause you grief if completed, you can announce it as loudly and in whatever terms you like except for explicitly asking that it be overridden. You can say you don't like the order, that you don't want to follow it, etc., you can say that you sure would like it and it would be awfully convenient if someone ordered you not to do it, and you can ask if anyone would like to make you not do it. However, you cannot stall indefinitely and if nobody orders you otherwise, you must execute the order.


You cannot stall on law 2 simply to grief people to any great extent, and you cannot straight up ignore a law 2 order, or ignore a law 2 order long enough that it leads to harm intentionally. But if someone law 2's you to do something that you know they're doing in bad faith, then given your 'good faith' onus it's possible to be a little _tiny_ bit a dick in the interest of not being a much bigger dick on account of some other shithead.

Some loose examples of things which are not explicitly overridden by Law 1 which you can delay on without much, if any, blowback:
"Law 2, open every interior door."
"Law 2, kill all the lizards on the station"
"Law 2, turn off power in security"

These are just examples of things you can probably hesitate on, announce to everyone prior to doing it to give someone a chance to countermand, or otherwise 'misunderstand' and require clarification on. You can't ignore a law 2 order that has no repercussions, but if it's legitimately grief, you can delay until someone tells you otherwise.

Note that this applies specifically to Asimov and that under other lawsets this may or may not apply.

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:39 am #415962

How exactly do you keep track of them if you're not adding a note or something? I feel like some things are more deserving of this, while other things are not.

This basically means bad faith griefing is okay if you do it only once. Imagine working on an Engineering project or literally trying to do your job, only to have 6 people grief you in bad faith only once. I think it should be clear when something's in bad faith and when it's not. If what you did left a lasting detriment to a person or their work, you did it in bad faith. If what you did is easily reversible, it's not in bad faith.

There's a difference between hiding/spacing Medbay's defibrillators and stealing them for other departments/people. Although, I'm sure there's situations where the first action might be okay based on context and IC reasoning. But then you have IC reasoning instead of doing it unprovoked/for no reason. If you did it because the CMO was pulling a hissy fit over defibrillators, then maybe it was deserved. If a doctor was resuscitating someone and you just forced them to be cloned instead (knowing full well what was going to happen and not taking it for a reason, like someone else needing it), a player who ahelps this situation shouldn't be told it's an IC issue.

Or imagine a first-time chemist who just finished a difficult medicine (assume before macros) and an assistant who disarms the beaker and throws/spills it on the ground. This kind of gameplay promotes destructive behavior over constructive behavior. A player probably doesn't want to spend their round juggling time-consuming medicines, protecting them, and chasing someone to make sure they can't interrupt them constantly.

The griefer being valid and accepting repercussions seems to be admin discretion which can lead to punishment to the point where it's basically ban baiting. I've come to accept that this is part of the game, so my projects/non-antag gimmicks are generally things that are easily reproducible. It would be nice if I could play the game in peace though. There's a difference between a traitor doing it (it's their job) and an assistant, security officer, or any non-antag player for that matter.

User avatar
Dax Dupont
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:07 pm
Location: Belgium
Byond Username: DaxYeen
Github Username: DaxDupont

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Dax Dupont » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:40 am #415977

It's really case by case, major griefing can result in instant admin action. It's a big grey zone which often involves tiptoeing the lines of acceptability. Minor greytiding is generally okay because this is a game fueled by conflict and sec needs to do other things then antaghunting.

It's really the admins call, though often cases which fall into the grey area get discussed on asay or adminbus.

Also the way we keep track is watchlists. People on the watchlists trigger a message when they connect.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Arianya » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:45 pm #416041

Also part of the reason AIs are given some leeway with monkey pawing laws is that

a) It's more interesting
and
b) Most of the time AI players have signed up to be the crew's bitch for 90 minutes with very little agency other then how they interpret their laws and what actions they take outside of thing's they're specifically ordered to do, so giving them a little more slack when they get to cut loose is kinda their delayed reward.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
Grazyn
 
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:01 am
Byond Username: Grazyn

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Grazyn » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:48 pm #416043

Silicons are also very powerful and if you want them to do what you want it's only fair that you have to put a modicum of effort into your laws.

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:29 pm #418205

zaracka wrote:In the ahelp, the admin didn't say the law was badly written, they said someone could print whatever they want.


Everyone trying to law lawyer the law is missing the point. I tried to find the round in question to grab the actual phrasing, but wasn't able to. Regardless, I think you're spreading misinformation too.

zaracka wrote:If I recall correctly, silicon policy in general is an "act in good faith" thing and not a "do it literally" thing. See: Silicon Policy. The clause appears three times and is the reason you can't put everyone in solitary confinement to prevent human harm.


There was one time where the AI was Asimov except "human being" replaced with "sentient being." Someone uploaded a One Human law and all the silicons proceeded to act like traitors, despite the law being mostly irrelevant and not overriding sentient being harm. The admin at the time went with a "spirit of the law" interpretation instead of "literal" interpretation. Not a fan of double standards.

I'll respond to Dax now. Anecdotally, I have experienced several instances where my round has been essentially ruined by someone taking minor IC conflict too far. Yet another example, security officer steals Krav Maga gloves from Warden, repeatedly arrests, and demotes the Warden because they might do something about it. Admin declared it an IC issue.

As long as grief is unactionable unless done consistently, people will do it inconsistently. The only question left, is this what we want? If so, then "unprovoked grief" shouldn't be explicitly against the rules.

I'd like to point out that feem's response conflicts with Dax's. I kind of messed up by overlooking it before now, but current admins aren't enforcing the rule the way feem has explained, rather the way Dax has explained.

feem wrote:Rule 1 covers grief. Rule 0 lets you get away with it to a point.

Admins understand that the /tg/ game operates on a certain layer of what would be considered, in other games, or even other servers, 'grief.'

This has become one of the major reasons that rule 0 exists. It's not just a 'catch all' to get rid of players that 'the admins don't like,' it's a rule that says 'we might not strictly enforce the rules if it's fun, funny, or original.' Rules are enforced at admin discretion, so err on the side of that discretion.

The question you have to ask yourself is: if not absolutely warranted in the situation, in doing what i'm doing, am i actively attempting to deprive another player of their round/experience/gameplay in a way that i know or could conceivably believe will be detrimental to them? Would I want this done to me?

And if after that consideration you're being a dick, then you need to stop.

Admins will basically use that as a litmus. Did you start the altercation, in someone else's department, in which you ended up dunking them? Then you _might_ be a dick. Did someone else come into your department, refuse to leave, fuck with you, and you dunked them? You're probably not.

It gets more complex from there, but the general message I'm trying to get across is: read rule 1 as being absolute, and then have _reasons_ for your behavior beyond that that will allow an admin not to give a fuck under rule 0. Don't engage in dickish behavior unless 1) you're willing to completely accept the ic consequences of it and aren't shopping for someone to murder outright (e.g. have an escalation path), 2) it's warranted.

If you have any questions ahelp. And try to be creative. 'Creative' doesn't mean 'kidnap and strip them instead of killing them,' it means 'hack their power and sabotage the doors leading to their APC,' or 'hide all their fire extinguishers and release slimes after they've tried to kill you three times in your own department, then wait for them to come again.' The majority of our ahelps involving rule 1 come down to someone doing the same old shit that's meant to deprive a player of their game rather than anything that's actually vaguely interesting.

User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby oranges » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:34 pm #418208

well maybe you should believe the one that aligns closely with your current experience of the world
Image

Dajcie mi człowieka, a paragraf się znajdzie

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:46 pm #418211

I made this thread mostly for awareness of an issue I was experiencing so I wouldn't have to make 50+ complaints. Doesn't help that you're put in a catch-22 where if you defend yourself/retaliate you either get bwoinked or need to "make a reasonable effort to return them to life at least once or make amends."

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Cobby » Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:11 pm #418222

Of course one admin differs from the other, it’s a rule open to interpretation of what is allowed dick behavior and what isn’t

IE I lean on things being IC
Image

zaracka
 
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 am
Byond Username: Zaracka

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby zaracka » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:05 pm #418236

feem's interpretation is better

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Does Rule 1 actually cover grief?

Unread postby Cobby » Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:55 am #418265

It’s too long to be any good
Image


Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests